✺roguetrick✺ @ roguetrick @lemmy.world

Posts

11

Comments

1,717

Joined

1 yr. ago

A very praxis heavy article. Good. They're right to differentiate the protests vs boycotts and strikes. Protests are the threats and rallies are the organization. Disruptive action is what is going to work now. The problem is our organization for it is still pretty poor.

You should repost this somewhere better though. It's going to be removed since it's an opinion piece and not a news article.

That's because he still believes he's going to succeed with his appeal. The delusions last for a long time with these folks. He likely put in a hardship appeal to bypass her ban on re-entry for however many years due to overstaying her visa. And he actually believes this administration will sign off on it.

A successful appeal in a past administration could take well over a year. He's truly fucked under Trump who's actively firing judges that approve too many waivers in their opinion and making the backlog even longer. He's not wrong that the system has been fundamentally broken and nonsensical. He's an exceptional idiot for thinking Trump is going to improve it though.

Edit: https://www.uscis.gov/i-601 is what I'm talking about

And why are you giving them money.

Plantain I could go for but dessert banana is a bridge too far. Caramelized plantains actually sounds like an excellent pizza topping.

@Kellamity@sh.itjust.works

I'm very hostile to excuses for conservatism because they're often positions to apologize for power structures that have a secondary gain. The point I'm making is you should never approach something that previously existed as if it was beneficial by default. It's often not and that's a fallacy as much as automatically believing it's useless. That's what this guy was doing with his Catholic apologia.

You should consider history to develop predictive theories(like what you're describing). But those are always subordinate to observable reality and bothering with trying to justify them too much is generally worthless. Sometimes you just need to act, considering inaction is an action itself.

In essence, it's a bad argument because it both presupposes you don't interrogate why things exist(you do, that's the entire point of the argument in the first place) and argues that an unknown reason might exist you might have to defer to. No shit. There might also be an unknown reason that it's incredibly destructive. Neither of those themselves are an argument, but one is certainly an appeal to tradition masked by an analogy.

Oh they're gonna find ya all dead in the alley with cats licking at ya.

You are so small. It's funny to me.

I honestly don't understand what's insightful about it. It encourages a functional viewpoint that results in you inventing proposed uses for something that is a vestige of an inefficiency. Justifying something useless isn't curiosity, it's just masturbation. You should identify how a structure interacts with it's current environment. There's a reason functionalism is considered worthless in sociology.

Finally, news that's impactful for Lemmy's userbase.

citing fierce competition from foreign fast fashion retailers

Like anything they sold was domestically produced in the first place

Four score and a dozen.

I dunno what you mean. This is from the base game.

Let me rephrase: most farmers I know could build a two stroke from parts

Now try to type

Parmesan Postman's Parmigiana Pittsburgh Ptarmigan

On a swipe keyboard.

Postman's

Payments

Pyramid

Personal

Pittsburgh

Postmodern

Ptarmigan

I did it.

Farmers can build a two stroke from parts.

@metaStatic@kbin.earth is just trolling for DMs at this point.

🖕

Push a fat man in front of the shrapnel.

Shared still incentivizes women to be taking it regardless of income. Breast feeding is a lot of goddamn work and is far far far superior for newborns with no antibodies. But newborns no matter how you slice it are a ton of goddamn work. Particularly true in the early postpartum weeks when pumping just isn't going to get consistent results.

None of that is more antisemitic than Trump's original statement.